Hacker News Reader

Comment by culopatin | Hacker News Reader

Why not both?

I struggle with the idea of adding more indicators and alarms to a vehicle because drivers are already swamped with a large amount of stimuli when driving. I'm not sure that adding more and possibly taking away control of a vehicle is the answer.

Why not make cars less deadly is what I meant to ask, sorry.

As it stands, this is the report that the article uses as it's primary source:

https://www.ghsa.org/sites/default/files/2021-03/Ped%20Spotl...

To start off with, 75% of pedestrian fatalities occur in the dark. If we can increase pedestrian visibility in the dark by doing something like saying "Don't wear dark clothes in the dark" that seems to me like something that may go farther in reducing pedestrian fatality than any car sensor.

Also, page 20 talked about how driving while intoxicated is a factor in half of all the deaths. A car sensor isn't going to help with that (and a breathalyzer is a massive invasion of privacy and a huge government overreach for people who don't have a history of this), and there are already all sorts of regulations that say "Don't drive after drinking" not to mention all sorts of public awareness campaigns. What car sensor is going to solve for that? There isn't one, there's just better enforcement of existing rules about driving drunk, which I can tell you already needs a lot of work.

In addition, pages 22-23 talk about a massive increase in light truck sales (page 23) but there is no corresponding fatality increase shown on page 22 and no fatality decrease for cars despite a massive decrease in sales. So I don't see how there can be a claim (not saying that you made the claim) that large vehicle traffic is causing more death.

Because cars are not, in and of themselves, inherently deadly any more than a train or a boat or a plane are inherently deadly. The fatality component of a vehicle largely rests on operators and those who are around vehicles. If a pedestrian on their phone steps off the sidewalk onto the road and gets struck by a vehicle is that the vehicle's or even the driver's fault? Of course not, just like a pedestrian is not at fault if they are crossing the street properly and a driver ignores the crosswalk or red lights. This issue cannot be solved by simply putting more sensors in a car, drivers and pedestrians need to take responsibility for their actions and understand exactly what they are doing when they cross each-other's path.

You’re talking about humans, not machines. What you have control over is how cars and humans behave on impact. You don’t have control over what your neighbor does when they walk. Are you perfect? You never get distracted? For those unique scenarios, do you rather be hit by a lifted f350 with a madmax inspired bumper or you rather have a chance of surviving your mistake?

Of course I would like the consequences of a mistake to be minimal, but I also don't think drivers of large vehicles should automatically be assumed at fault and penalized just because they like to drive a large vehicle. Even the GHSA report's own solutions primarily focus on driver and pedestrian awareness programs and non-vehicle related solutions as opposed to more sensors in a car.

EDIT: They do suggest automatic braking solutions but even those can be hampered by inclement weather which large portions of the US are subject to. The last thing I want my car doing is locking up my brakes on a slippery road because it sensed a possible pedestrian.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com